Trip

OTA TV is not just a free service -- it is, in part, a public service.  Per their spectrum licenses, Class A TV station broadcasters must satisfy certain FCC public service requirements in the interest of the public good.

 

To address at least one of Arysyn's earlier points, OTA TV may seem archaic and inefficient use of spectrum to most in this day and age.  I do not use an OTA antenna.  As part of my DOCSIS broadband service, I have very, very basic cable -- because I do not watch much TV, except for network televised live sports and syndicated reruns.  However, millions of elderly, poor, and rural people rely upon OTA TV for news, weather, public service, and, yes, entertainment.

 

The 600 MHz auction, if successful, has the potential to restrict severely OTA TV across much of the country.  I am particularly disturbed at the lack of protection for repeater and translator stations that are crucial for conveying OTA TV across large rural areas.  Maybe if our government would not kowtow to disingenuous capitalist/free market business interests, would instead do the right thing, invest in our future, and lay fiber to every farmhouse, henhouse, and outhouse in this country, then injuring or even killing off OTA TV in favor of mobile wireless spectrum licensing would make sense.  But that is not reality, not even close.

 

AJ

Absolutely.  If anyone's looked at RabbitEars, what it is and how much work went into it, it's probably clear what my opinion on OTA broadcasting is.  And I would point out that it's not just the elderly, poor, and rural viewers, but also people tired of spending money on a boatload of cable channels they don't watch.  My parents and my wife's parents have never had cable or satellite, as an example, for reasons of cost more than anything else. 

I'm in total agreement that we need rural fiber in the same way that we got rural power and telephone.  Not that I have any policy-making influence.

- Trip

So then if a phone has to disable B12 if it doesn't support VoLTE, does it also need to disable B5 for the same reason then?  That's the logical leap I'm making here, since a T-Mobile customer roaming on US Cellular could wind up in the same boat while on B5 instead of B12.

- Trip

Do T-Mobile phones not support Band 5?  US Cellular has plenty of places where they have LTE on Band 5 but not Band 12, and the same issue would apply there.

- Trip

So what you are saying is that this auction, unlike typical FCC auctions where the FCC sells a pool of spectrum the FCC has directly to the carriers, the broadcasters offer up a certain amount of spectrum the FCC can sell on their behalf?

 

Where I am confused by this, is that for several years, I've heard that the FCC has practically given away the public airwaves to these broadcasters in exchange for the FCC regulating content on them, sort of like how broadcasters cannot show full nudity etc.

 

Based on that prior to what you've told me, that the FCC was going to take back that spectrum from the broadcasters and directly resell them to carriers, while the FCC works with the broadcasters on suitable replacement spectrum for the broadcasters to use. If that were the case, then I would be thinking differently, more positively of this auction.

 

However, if the FCC were giving away the airwaves to broadcasters for their use, then to tell these broadcasters they have the right to decide whether to give that free spectrum to the carriers or not, than that certainly would be making a mess of things by allowing that when carriers are willing to spend alot of money for that spectrum which helps fund important things for society.

 

Yet, if what I've been hearing for several years, from many different news sources, reliable ones at that, about the FCC giving away the airwaves to broadcasters over the past many decades, and if these broadcasters had been paying the fair worth of the airwaves over the years, then I can understand how this auction is fair. Otherwise though, it is not.

I'm going to respond right in order without breaking up your post:

Yes, that's correct.  The amount of spectrum available for sale to the wireless companies depends strictly on the amount of spectrum offered up by broadcasters. 

Broadcasters are a licensed service, and although many licensed before the 1980s received their spectrum "for free", they did so in exchange for tough regulations, as you imply, and at a time when spectrum didn't have the value it has today.  The UHF band, in particular, was considered to be a wasteland for more than 20 years; the FCC quite literally could not give the spectrum away.  So the value of it would have been zero at the time.  If someone buys a stock and it appreciates in value, do you then not allow a person to sell it at a profit because they didn't pay the going price today?

The principle is that once a broadcaster has a license, and unless they violate their license terms and are no longer considered eligible to hold the license, they have the right to have that license renewed at the end of their license term.  Wireless companies, I believe, are treated the same way; I don't think they have their licenses pulled at the end of the term and they go back up for auction.  So in this case, the broadcasters are being offered money to turn in their licenses and forgo renewal.  And TV licenses sold after the 80s were auctioned, so the handful licensed after that date were paid for.

I will also point out, on top of all of that, that TV is a free service, whereas you have to pay for your cell phone.  So of course the cell phone carriers will have more money to pay for spectrum, all other things being equal.  In effect, they were given "free" spectrum to provide a free service to the public.

Perhaps if the broadcasters don't want to participate, that may have an effect on the auction and get the FCC to delay the auction. However, there still is plenty of interest in the auction from carriers other than Sprint and the "duopoly". Is that going to be enough to get the broadcasters to participate, I'm not sure. I'd like to read a response from Trip to my post responding to him last, as he's been helpful in helping me understand this auction a bit better, which there are some issues I mentioned there that could be clarified.

 

Yet in the meantime, it seems from the links Fraydog posted, the broadcasters are still interested.

If Verizon, AT&T, Dish, and Sprint were all to sit out, T-Mobile and a handful of other parties like CCA members and non-Dish speculators likely wouldn't bid enough to support the payments to broadcasters (unless they were willing to bid against themselves for some reason?).  Some spectrum may be sold, yes, but probably not 84 MHz at that point, probably a smaller number.

- Trip

It's a mess basically due to several reasons which have been talked about here and on other sites online throughout the past some months. I'd literally have to spend several hours compiling it all, time I'd rather not spend. Although a simple explanation for it would be to say why have an auction of spectrum currently being used by television broadcasters, when it is voluntary of them to decide whether or not to give up that spectrum for the sake of wireless.

 

It reminds me of a non-rent controlled apartment building where there are people renting a few apartments, though the building owner/landlord really wants to sell to a condominium developer, though the building owner/landlord isn't going to force the renters to move out, and is going to tell the condominium developer they must allow the renters to stay at the rent they are paying, despite the building not being rent controlled at all.

 

At least that is the closest analogy I can think of at the moment and isn't exactly, though somewhat close to how I'm viewing this auction. Of course, the auction is much more complex, but it shows to me a simple form of what a mess it is, along with all the various other reasons I've read about online.

You're missing my point.  You specifically said the FCC made a mess of it.  I'm curious what parts you feel the FCC made a mess of as opposed to what the FCC was required to do by the law Congress passed.  The FCC is implementing a law Congress passed to voluntarily allow TV stations to sell spectrum to wireless companies with the FCC acting more or less as a broker.

- Trip

However, the FCC has made a mess of this auction

How?  Recall that Congress passed the law requiring the FCC to conduct this two sided auction using market forces to determine the amount of spectrum to be recovered and whatnot.

I will also point out that there is no more "virgin spectrum" sitting out there unlicensed, unused, and waiting for wireless companies to buy it up and deploy it.  From here on out, any spectrum reallocated to anyone is going to have to come from somewhere else and presumably someone is going to have to be paid to relocate out of it.

- Trip

Just curious.. If the auction is voluntary how do they even know how much spectrum will be available?

They don't.  Once TV stations submit their applications will there be an idea of how much spectrum.  Then the reverse auction happens, determining how much money needs to be raised, then the forward auction, where the carriers bid and money is raised.  If money raised is less than money needed, the amount of spectrum goes down, and the reverse and forward auctions repeat. 

- Trip

I have a strong viewpoint that this auction is very important and I think the wireless needs for this spectrum greatly outweigh those of television broadcasters

But the auction is voluntary for broadcasters.  If wireless guys don't show up, and thus the reserve and the price the TV stations want for the spectrum isn't met, then the whole thing doesn't happen regardless of which you think "ought" to have it.

- Trip

The band plan has been adopted, and will be nationwide, however, certain licenses may not be sold as TV stations may occupy that spectrum.  Which licenses those are, we don't know yet, and can't until the auction starts.

- Trip

What will this news do to the broadcasters that are on the fence about giving up their spectrum? Only 1 of the national cell phone companies has committed and one just said they are out. Could this change how much spectrum becomes available? I am asking because I stopped following this month's back when Sprint first said they were evaluating the auction.

 

Sent from my HTC M9

I don't think it changes how many stations show up, just how many of them may get bought out.  I think they'll largely keep their buy-out prices the same and so if there is less competition and thus less revenue with which to pay broadcasters, less spectrum will be available and fewer stations will be bought.

It does make the chance of the auction going through more than one stage more likely, I suspect.

- Trip

After all, the FCC being a federal agency, ought to be handling spectrum on a nationwide basis, not locally, not regionally, but nationally. This is my opinion and its a strong one. I really hate that there are such discrepancies between markets. I think it is a hugely unfair system and would love to see reforms to it.

Why would a regional carrier want nationwide spectrum?  More importantly, how would they afford to pay for or build out nationwide spectrum?

- Trip

One step closer:  https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-program/early-termination-notices/20151591

FTC won't block it.  (Not that it would have been expected.)

- Trip

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-nears-new-deal-for-cell-service-throughout-tunnel-system/2015/09/21/9653d3da-5d41-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html

Metro.

- Trip

Question, if the phone shows as "Roaming" when connected to "Roaming+" partners, does that mean the phone will still drain its battery continually scanning for non-roaming service?

- Trip

I can upload 55 series later if it would help Trip

Only if there's any thought that EV-DO has changed.

- Trip

Since I'm comparing the 55 series to the 56 series this time, a lot of stuff doesn't line up, probably due to extra EV-DO lines.  I'm going to have to go through line-by-line, I think.

EDIT:  Without being able to know what 3G is new versus what's a change from 55 to 56, I've just analyzed the 1X parts.

Geography 7:  Added 4305, 93. (Roaming)

Geography 12:  Removed 362, 5652, 5274

Geography 13:  Added 4307. (Roaming)

Quick check says 93 is Verizon, 4305 and 4307 are SI Wireless, 362/5652/5274 are Cellcom.

EDIT2:  Quick check of Cellcom's coverage map indicates they are using the Verizon network for nationwide LTE.  Wonder if they terminated their deal with Sprint as a result.

- Trip

Not yet.  I've been sick all weekend and haven't really felt like scouring it.

- Trip

I had two Monday, both with my wife on the same tower as I was (I was in the store, she was in the car).  Before that... last one may have been in June.

- Trip

I didn't get that from the article.  I thought the car comparison was very apt.  Buy (Easy Pay) or lease (Lease). 

But not subsidizing.

- Trip

I would prefer to just replace my signal bar/data type indicator completely with SignalCheck Pro.  Recover the space in my notification bar.

- Trip

Okay, here's what I've got.

Geography 3:  1165 and 1173 are removed.

Geography 4:  1192 removed.

Geography 7:  4307 downgraded from native to roaming (albeit most preferred roaming).

Geography 12:  Think I made a mistake in extracting the files, but just some roaming shuffled around.  Nothing important.

Geography 14:  1522 downgraded from native to roaming (albeit most preferred roaming).

Geography 14:  Removed roaming SIDs 84, 114, 116, 204, 368, 520, 1148, 1640, 1650, 2038.

Geographies 19-21:  Completely gone.

I don't have time to put names to SIDs tonight, but that should get people started.

- Trip

No problems, but I'm home from my trip now.  I was only in Connecticut for a day and had B41 for much of my time there.

- Trip

Furthermore 700a is blocked by a local station.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5

That doesn't really matter here, I don't think.  It's a one time expense of maybe $1 million and there are plenty of other open channels WPXX could be moved to.

- Trip

Time got away from me, I'll try to work on it tomorrow.

- Trip

I was in Newington on August 15 and had B41 running just fine.  Sure it's not your phone somehow?

- Trip